ABSTRACT
Harris (1998:1) defi nes integrationism as ‘a view of human communication’, and integrational linguistics as ‘the application of integrationism to the specifi c case of language’, in order to ‘change the way people think about language’. Toolan (1996: 321) closes with the following defi nition: ‘The integrational stance is not itself a method or model but such a reconsideration of utterances in their contexts as indicates the limitations or incompleteness of any analytic methodology one might apply to them.’ One cannot blame language teachers for shying away from these statements and the approach they represent, despite Widdowson’s undoubtedly correct defense of teachers’ theoretical interests (1978: 163). After all, students are trying to learn ‘a language’, not to change the way they think about language in general. And how can a ‘reconsideration of utterances’ occur without a fi rst consideration of utterances, that is to say, their grammatical form and possible meanings? The simple response to these rhetorical objections is to say that the experience of learning a language involves the consideration and reconsideration of utterances, quite possibly in terms of grammatical form and meaning, and with reference to context. This experience can very well change how students think about language. One only has to consider the diffi culty of composing a grammatical and appropriate letter in a language one has attempted to learn to see that language study forces students and teachers to reconsider their language assumptions. The open and critical reader will fi nd much in integrationism that corresponds to and in some cases explains her experiences of language learning and teaching.
